And Yet More D&D thoughts: Spellbooks as Recipes

[ralphmelton]

For some reason, I've been thinking about the difficulties of learning a spell from another mage's spellbook, and looking for a model that explains that. Here's what I've come up with:

A mage's spellbook is like a book of recipes. And like most medieval recipes, it's written more as a reminder to the mage than as a guide to someone else. So when the recipe says the equivalent of "put near the top of a hot oven and bake until done," the mage trying to decipher that recipe is going to be a bit challenged.

The wizards' Spellcraft skill includes the skill of deciphering such a recipe. If you fail to decipher a recipe, you really won't be able to do so unless you learn more about the deciphering of recipes. You may be able to learn that technique through other methods, like getting the original creator to show you how it's done.

Having the original caster show you how a spell is cast (prepared then cast, in the D&D spell model) would give you a significant bonus on the Spellcraft check for learning a spell. But it still would not be a sure thing, because the two of you might not realize some critical detail that needs to be communicated.

Sorcerers don't use recipes. They're like the cooks who can make wonderful items, but can't read a recipe or effectively imitate another cook.

Classes who don't cast arcane spells are basically unaware of the whole kitchen of arcane magic.

To continue this metaphor to magic items:
- Potions are like wholly prepared foods. They need no kitchen smarts; just unwrap and eat. Other things like rings fit in this category too.
- Wands are like instant hot chocolate or coffee--anyone with a bit of kitchen familiarity can trigger them. This is why sorcerers can use wands.
- Scrolls are like the 'meal-in-a-box' products. (There are some that are like Hamburger Helper, but include all the ingredients required. I can't think of a product name at the moment, though.) It doesn't take too much cooking skill to make one of these (which is why sorcerers can use scrolls). These products also include the property that their ingredients are evident enough that it's conceivable for someone clueful in deciphering recipes to be able to reconstruct an equivalent recipe from the set of provided ingredients, which is why wizards can learn spells from scrolls they find. And it's possible to prepare the recipe from the box even if you can't reconstruct the recipe, which is true for scrolls too.

Hey. This all kind of makes sense. Imagine that. This doesn't always happen with D&D.

Some corollaries of this metaphor:

1. There's no particular connection in this metaphor between those three types of food products and the three types of magic items. So maybe I will have things that behave like potions but aren't flasks of liquid to be drunk, or things that behave like scrolls but aren't portable rolls of paper. (Imagine a scroll-effect item that someone has thoughtfully carved on a large boulder...)

2. Someone who was trying to write for the benefit of others could be extra-clear in their recipe-writing, making spells that were easier to decipher. This, though, is not the normal case.

3. If you failed a Spellcraft roll to decipher another caster's book or spell, having that material would still make it much easier to research that spell than doing research without that guidance.

4. Research wizards will generate a lot of notes on "recipes" that went wrong, and they'll only copy the ones that went right into their spellbooks. This means that wizards' libraries will could have a lot of notebooks and papers without being wall-to-wall spellbooks.

I rather like this metaphor. What do y'all think of it?

Comments

[beegle.livejournal.com]

I really like this analogy.

For prepared foods: Perhaps Chef Boyardee products or MREs? Kraft now makes these disturbing "just add water" Mac&CheeseLikeProduct mixes. Perhaps Lunchables?

I really want an excuse to mention Uncrustables (http://www.smuckers.com/fg/otg/uncrustables/default.asp?) (just because it's a food product that disburbs me), but I can't think of any. Uncrustables, Uncrustables, Uncrustables. (http://www.smuckers.com/fg/otg/uncrustables/default.asp?) There. I feel better.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

There are many fine examples of prepared foods. (Mmm, Twinkies as a potion-equivalent.)

I agree that Uncrustables are fearsome. I think I may have mentioned them in my journal before, but Google apparently hasn't indexed my journal well enough for me to find out whether I had.

The "disturbing 'just add water' Mac&CheeseLikeProduct mixes" would be in the class of preparation that I described as equivalent to wands. Mmm, Mac&CheeseLikeProduct. (They also sell Mac&CheeseLikeProduct that requires neither refrigeration nor rehydration, I believe.)

[cellio]

I like this analogy a lot. I'm now going to free-associate:

This implies that having multiple copies of a spell (books or scrolls), from different sources, usually increases your chance of learning the spell because you can compare and contrast the recipes. Conversely, a poorly-understood recipe can interfere with your learning, as you attempt to reconcile what you "already know" with new data. (Been there, done that.)

It helps if you know what you're trying to make. The name of the spell/recipe might not tell you much if it's flowery rather than descriptive. (I can show you recipes from real medieval/renaissance cookbooks where it is not at all clear to most people what the product is going to be. Spellcraft would factor in here.)

Multiple wizards working together stand a better chance of deciphering a recipe, because they can share their knowledge and intuitions. If the session doesn't descend into complete chaos (too many cooks).

Different wizards will have different shorthands for their own books (cheat sheets, not published instruction manuals). Scrolls will be clearer because they are complete packages rather than notes. Multiple recipes from the same book are easier to decipher once you've deciphered some of them, though, because the notation is unlikely to change. (And because when working out a cipher, more data = better odds.)

Developing new recipes (and modifying existing ones) is less challenging when you know similar recipes and very challenging when you're in unfamiliar territory. Knowing how to make savory roasted chicken doesn't tell you much about cheesecake, even though they both use ovens (or fires, in your medievaloid setting).

A wizard who has researched a new spell might try to protect that more than his copy of Mend. ("... 11 herbs and spices".)

A particularly sneaky wizard who fears robbery might throw in some bad information. (Think Anarchist's Cookbook.)

A wizard who's starting to have memory problems may be in for a heaping helping of hurting, though. (Um, how much is "some" dragon's blood again?")

For a wizard Spellcraft is practical knowledge; for everyone else it's a study in trivia, perhaps the way linguists look at a language differently from speakers. Spellcraft can help a wizard's understanding of a spell, but a sorceror either gets it or doesn't. Conversely, a sorceror who gets it probably has an easier time of varying minor parameters than a wizard would, because the wizard is just following the recipe while the sorceror is playing wih the building blocks without necessarily understanding them. A sorceror might be more likely to try something that shouldn't work, because there's no recipe specifying the yield. (This is part of the reason that I've been having Larissa experiment with Mage Hand and multiple small objects, by the way; it seems perfectly obvious to *her* that this should work.)

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

I'm responding with an eye towards how these ideas get reflected in the D&D rules.

This implies that having multiple copies of a spell (books or scrolls), from different sources, usually increases your chance of learning the spell because you can compare and contrast the recipes.
According to the rules, you get only one chance at a given level of Spellcraft to learn a spell from any source. Hmm.
I would have handled this by giving you two rolls to master the spell, one for each source. Since spell mastery is purely binary, that's adequate.

It helps if you know what you're trying to make. The name of the spell/recipe might not tell you much if it's flowery rather than descriptive.
Yet more encouragement for flowery names! I'm not going to deal with this by rules; I'll assume that the random variation in the Spellcraft roll covers variation in the quality of the names.

Multiple wizards working together stand a better chance of deciphering a recipe
I hadn't thought about that, but now that you bring it up, I would be willing to allow an assistance roll for two wizards deciphering a manuscript.

Different wizards will have different shorthands for their own books.
Yep.
Scrolls will be clearer because they are complete packages rather than notes.
According to the rules, they're equally clear. My explanation: the notes include more commentary, the scrolls are more finished, and it balances out.
Multiple recipes from the same book are easier to decipher once you've deciphered some of them, though, because the notation is unlikely to change.
My judgment: it's more like a code than a cipher, so it takes a much larger body of text to get an advantage. You get a measurable advantage from the rest of the mage's library, not from his spellbook.

Developing new recipes (and modifying existing ones) is less challenging when you know similar recipes and very challenging when you're in unfamiliar territory.
This is also true for interpreting existing recipes.
Part of this happens in the rules because of the rules for specialist wizards.
I'd also be willing to give a bonus for researching a spell like Improved Invisibility if you also know Invisibility.

A wizard who has researched a new spell might try to protect that more than his copy of Mend.
Yeah. I think that just as a wizard could write a spell in a way that was particularly easy to understand, he or she could also write it in such a way as to be particularly opaque. If he did, it would require a Spellcraft roll to prepare the spell. The DC of that spell is normally such that taking 10 on the Spellcraft check works, which is why we never bother with that Spellcraft roll normally. (This is why wizards ordinarily don't bother making their spells easier; they pass the checks easily anyway.) A DC of 10 + spell level sounds reasonable, perhaps--it's 15 + spell level to prepare a spell from someone else's book.
If you make the spell extra cryptic, though, you might have problems. Failing that Spellcraft check might result in a mishap when the spell was cast. This might be a roll that the DM made in secret...

A particularly sneaky wizard who fears robbery might throw in some bad information.
This will be covered under the same 'harder to understand' rules. Hope you remember what the bad information was!

A wizard who's starting to have memory problems may be in for a heaping helping of hurting, though.
This Spellcraft check to prepare, plus chance of mishap seems to offer some ways to provide that heaping helping of hurting. I like this; it seems to me that there should be ways for magic to go seriously wrong. (Not that it's very likely to happen to PCs--it's much more likely to happen to NPCs as a plot device.)

(continued...)

[cellio]

I would have handled this by giving you two rolls to master the spell, one for each source. Since spell mastery is purely binary, that's adequate.

Makes sense.

Yet more encouragement for flowery names! I'm not going to deal with this by rules; I'll assume that the random variation in the Spellcraft roll covers variation in the quality of the names.

Actually, you don't need to handle this in the rules at all. If the wizard who finds a book decides that it's worth his time to find out what Morien's Mighty Fist of Death is, and learns when he's done that it bears a strong resemblence to Mage Hand, well, fine. And if he decides that something with an innocuous-sounding name isn't worth investigating, he'll never know what he missed out on.

You get a measurable advantage from the rest of the mage's library, not from his spellbook.

Good point.

Yeah. I think that just as a wizard could write a spell in a way that was particularly easy to understand, he or she could also write it in such a way as to be particularly opaque. If he did, it would require a Spellcraft roll to prepare the spell.

Sounds right to me.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

Continued, because LJ only allows 4000 characters in a comment:

[discussions on Spellcraft]
I think it's not quite 'minor trivia' to everyone, particularly for sorcerors. I do think that wizards and sorcerors have a very different experience of their Spellcraft knowledge--it's like a physicist talking about pool shots with an intuitive pool hustler.

This is a nice discussion--I'm happy with the results.

[cellio]

Sorry -- what I meant was that to non-practitioners, it's more like trivia. Fighters can take Spellcraft as a cross-class skill, after all, but it's kind of like a computer scientist who has a hobbyist's level of interest in music. He may geek out on the theory even if he can't play any instrument competently, but he'll view it differently from comparable levels of study in his own field.

The physicist/hustler analogy strikes me as a good one.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

One more thought about this analogy:

I'm pretty sure that there were not very many cooking academies in the middle ages--most cooks learned from one or a few other cooks, under an apprenticeship-like system. (Check me on this, please.)

I believe that something similar is the case with wizards--at least in my world.

This goes a long way towards explaining why PC mages get put out in the world with only a scant handful of spells, instead of knowing quite a few spells from academic study; they don't have that many sources, and don't have the mastery of Spellcraft required to learn a master's big spells.

This suggests that wizards are also pretty rare, since they're not gathering together. There are other advantages to having wizards be rare, too--it helps keep the economy and society vaguely familiar.

[cellio]

I'm pretty sure that there were not very many cooking academies in the middle ages--most cooks learned from one or a few other cooks, under an apprenticeship-like system. (Check me on this, please.)

Correct. In fact, off the top of my head I cannot identify a single one, though I'm not prepared to say that this Wasn't Done. But it certainly doesn't appear to have been the norm!

Which makes sense -- most trades were learned through apprenticeship, not through academies. Academies arose initially for the more, shall we say, "academic" fields, like law and music and sciences, not for crafts.

This suggests that wizards are also pretty rare, since they're not gathering together. There are other advantages to having wizards be rare, too--it helps keep the economy and society vaguely familiar.

Yes, this sounds like a good idea to me.

[space-parasite.livejournal.com]

Note that your own knowledge of a spell that's in the spellbook being studied should help for deciphering other spells in that book: "Zornblat says use two handfuls of sulfur for burning hands, and I know that spell uses eight ounces, so his hand holds four ounces, which means that when he says use five handfuls of powdered mandragora here..."

Of course, it may be that powdered mandragora blows away more easily than sulfur, so Zornblat automatically closes his hand around the mandragora and leaves it open for the sulfur, but you should still derive some benefit from the knowledge.

Since a wizard's notation is probably at least in substantial part derived from his master's, this leads to the possibility of different magical 'languages', which you can pay skill points for just like other languages. If you don't have the language, you have to make Spellcraft; if you do, you don't (or get +10, or whatever).

[bluelang.livejournal.com]

Very inciteful.

I like these allegories alot